Issue No. 595
Chronicles
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
18 - 24 July 2002 Issue No. 595 Chronicles |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Recommend this page | ||
The fall of Lord Lloyd
The ouster of Lord George Lloyd, the British high commissioner to Egypt in the early 1920s, made headlines in all the Arabic publications, including Al-Ahram. The seventh occupant of Dubara Palace, the seat of British power in Egypt, had not simply resigned; he was pushed out of office. The news, whether welcome or not, came as an even greater shock since, as Professor
On the morning of Wednesday, 24 July 1929, British headlines blared the news of the fall of Lord George Lloyd as British high commissioner to Egypt. The lord's dismissal took the form of an exchange of letters between him and Foreign Office Secretary Arthur Henderson.
Abdullah Hussein
Lloyd's letter read: "Since my return from Egypt I have been contemplating, in light of my recent discussions with you, various aspects of the situation that has emerged following the instatement of the new government in England (the McDonald-led Labour government that came to power in May that year) and the policies that I believe this government intends to take with regards to affairs in Egypt. I had strongly hoped to continue my service under the new cabinet. However, regrettably I have come to see that my opinions do not fully conform with yours, for which reason I will be unable to faithfully fulfil my duties towards the government of His Royal Highness the King."
Henderson responded: "The government fully recognises the validity of the causes that moved Lord Lloyd to tender his resignation to the government. In accepting this resignation, the government wishes to express its gratitude for the noble services Lord Lloyd performed in the important and distinguished positions he occupied in Egypt and elsewhere."
Al-Ahram carried the news the following day under the banner heading: "Lord Lloyd dismissed as British High Commissioner to Egypt." The choice of words was appropriate. Lloyd did not leave of his own accord. Rather, he had been ousted.
George Lloyd was the seventh occupant of Dubara Palace, the seat of British power in Egypt, the fourth official to bear the title high commissioner and the second high commissioner following the declaration of Egyptian independence in 1922. In a brief survey of this period in Egypt, Al-Ahram observed that when Lloyd arrived in the beginning of 1926, the constitution had been suspended and the country was seething with anger. "In a speech he delivered before he arrived he had announced that he was going to Egypt to sell the policy of Lord Cromer. Then he arrived. With great pomp and aloofness, he paraded through the streets in a grand procession such as that of kings. Egyptians could not help but to recall the proverbial austerity of Lord Cromer and his famous carriage drawn by a single horse. 'This is the new Lord Cromer?' people asked. There then ensued sumptuous receptions in Menoufiya and Minya, causing those who could remember to mutter, 'We never saw the likes of that in Lord Cromer's time.'"
Such display, which Lloyd sustained throughout his three years as high commissioner, was matched only by the severity of his iron grip over the country. Never before had the British ultimatum been brought to bear with such frequency and vehemence as during Lloyd's tenure.
Egyptian opinion was divided in its analysis of Lloyd's dismissal, as was evident in the report of the Oriental adviser to the Office of the High Commissioner in Cairo on the Egyptian press. According to this report, located in the British confidential archives, Al-Siyasa, the mouthpiece of the Liberal Constitutionalists, held that Lloyd resigned because of his opposition to the Labour government's policy towards Prime Minister and Liberal Constitutionalist leader Mohamed Mahmoud.
Al-Balagh, the most influential Wafd Party newspaper, disagreed. It believed that the former high commissioner's support for the Mohamed Mahmoud government against the will of the people was the biggest reason for his dismissal. It reminded readers that Lloyd had described Mahmoud as the best statesman in Egypt and suggested that the Liberal Constitutionalists were panic-stricken by Lloyd's downfall. The newspaper added that the tour Wafd Party Secretary Makram Ebeid made in London succeeded in convincing British public opinion of the folly of Lloyd's support for the Mahmoud government.
The National Party organ, Al-Akhbar, rejoiced at Lloyd's dismissal, which it attributed to the perseverance of the nationalist movement. It appealed to the Egyptian people to maintain their struggle for independence and not allow Lloyd's departure to make them become complacent. Otherwise, "we will simply be seeing one British man go, only for another to take his place."
Al-Ittihad, the mouthpiece of the pro-palace party, maintained an enigmatic silence. Not only did it not comment on the high commissioner's dismissal; it did not even report the news.
Not surprisingly, the notoriously pro-British newspaper, Al- Muqattam, was dismayed at the news, but said that this would not be the last word on the subject from the high commissioner. Lloyd had powerful friends in London and would not let the matter go so easily.
In his report on the Egyptian press, the Oriental adviser devoted special attention to Al-Ahram, noted for its sobriety and objectivity. Al-Ahram, he observed, reviewed Lloyd's term in office, and if the newspaper criticised many of his policies, it also believed that some of these policies were frowned upon in London, which did not want to promote an autocratic form of rule in Egypt. In the opinion of Al-Ahram, the dismissal of Lloyd was a sign that the British government intended to fundamentally alter its policy toward Egypt.
The fall of Lord Lloyd also triggered debate in the Egyptian press over whether British colonial policy would change under the new Labour government. One body of opinion held that it would, since the outgoing conservative government was notorious for its preference for the heavy hand, such as that wielded by Lloyd, whereas Labour tended toward understanding and compromise. The opposing camp felt that Lloyd brought his own downfall, and that British imperial policy did not change with the change of government.
Henderson settled the question on 26 July -- two days after Lloyd's resignation was announced in the British press -- in his address to parliament. British foreign policy did not change with the change of government, he said. His predecessor, Sir Chamberlain, had been annoyed with Lloyd's handling of the situation in Egypt and had been awaiting the opportunity to replace him. The Labour leader went on to explain the circumstances leading up to Lloyd's resignation. He said that several days after assuming office, he received a letter from Lloyd, "the tone and substance of which prompted me to ask to have the file containing his correspondence brought to me right away. The file covers most of the period Lord Lloyd served in Egypt. I must say that as I read through this correspondence I realised that there was a vast difference of opinion between the former foreign secretary and Lord Lloyd and I deeply regret that Sir Austin Chamberlain cannot be with us today to confirm this."
Henderson went on to list several instances in which the views of Chamberlain and Lloyd clashed. The first occasion was in 1926 when it seemed that Wafd Party head Saad Zaghlul would become prime minister again. The Foreign Office was reluctant to intervene, but Lloyd was so adamant in his opposition to the nationalist leader that he continued to assail his superiors with telegrams until they finally agreed to let him intervene.
The shoe was on the other foot in the winter of 1927-28 over the question of British staff in the Egyptian government. Henderson related, "Lord Lloyd wanted to overturn the policy that had been followed the previous year, but Sir Chamberlain could find no justification for such a reversal, arguing that to do so would create ill will. After many telegrams were exchanged, Lloyd was forced to submit to the instructions of the Foreign Office."
Lloyd prevailed in the next round, which took place during the army crisis of the summer of 1927. On this occasion, the cabinet sided with Lloyd's opinion and warships were dispatched to the Egyptian coast. Even then, Henderson added, "it was not possible to reach an adequate solution."
In the spring of 1928, when Lloyd urged the need to halt the passage of the Assemblies Bill and to dissolve parliament, Chamberlain informed Lloyd that he had no wish to disrupt constitutional life. Although Tharwat Pasha succeeded in having the vote on the bill postponed, Lloyd wanted to press ahead with his strong-arm tactics but was once again forced to yield to instructions from his superiors.
A similar outcome prevailed in the spring of 1929 when Lloyd and Chamberlain butted heads over new taxes to be imposed on British subjects in Egypt. Although Lloyd backed down it was only very grudgingly.
Concluding this review, Henderson observed that the major difference between Lloyd and Chamberlain was that whereas the latter preferred to follow a more lenient policy Lloyd was a tenacious hard-liner. "After reading these correspondences I felt that the policy of my government could not be any less lenient. Could I allow us to contemplate continuing in that nettlesome way should the high commissioner insist on pursuing his characteristic rigidity and intolerance?"
Following Al-Ahram in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the high commissioner it is possible to observe three trends of opinion. One expressed jubilation and no small amount of schadenfreude, sentiments best expressed in the headline, "On the dismissal of Lord Lloyd: Egypt -- the graveyard of the fame of British representatives." In this article, Abdullah Hussein presented a brief history of the Dubara Palace six -- Cromer, Gorst, Kitchner, MacMahon, Wingate, Allenby -- all of whose careers met a tragic end. He concluded:
"There is something mysterious about the greatness of Egypt. The British who rose to fame abroad and then came to Egypt eager for greater fame, influence and stature soon saw their celebrity interred. Whereas formerly they were praised as wise, in Egypt they were rebuked for folly. If they had been thought adept they were then thought slow-witted. And those that were deemed competent ended their careers in Egypt as incompetents. Indeed, after Egypt they were forced to abandon their political careers entirely or, as they say of Lord Lloyd today, they swore to divorce politics thrice over!"
A second opinion was more circumspect, warning Egyptians not to give into premature jubilation and idle daydreams. Typifying this reaction were the two articles by George Tanous, appearing under the headline, "Resigned or removed -- an Englishman goes and another comes." "Wake up!" he exhorts Egyptian leaders. "Lord Lloyd's dismissal will not bring full independence. Nor will the appointment of his successor prevent our imminent death as long as we are quarrelling and disunited."
Egyptians should draw the lesson from experience and not allow themselves to be deceived by changes in individuals. "Only yesterday, Lord Cromer was the Caesar of Dubara Palace. His every nod was a command and his word was final and incontrovertible. When Cromer trespassed on the rights of the innocent the nation cried out in anger, and this ardent cry expelled him from Dubara. Then, Sir Gorst took his place, with his smooth soft voice and his manicured fingernails. But the suavity of that Sir delivered harsher blows to Egypt than all the might of Lord Cromer."
Tanous further reminded readers that Britain did not prevail over the countries of the Orient by "the sword and fire", but rather because of the divisions among the conquered peoples. "As long as Britain sees the Egyptian people disunited and splintered into disparate parties it will be easy for it to exact what it wants from Egypt through the auspices of any government, so long as someone is willing to create a government on the ruins of its predecessor." Egyptians, therefore, should not gloat over the British Labour government's unprecedented action in the history of high commissioners to Egypt. "We should not deceive ourselves into imagining that government will change British policy in Egypt. Such thinking will serve nothing as long as we are divided and at each others' throats."
Between these two emotive responses was the more dispassionate approach of Al-Ahram, as expressed in its editorial of 26 July. The crux of the matter did not reside in the individual, whether he resigned or was dismissed, wrote Editor-in-Chief Dawoud Barakat. "The worship of personalities is a purely Oriental phenomenon. In the West, they worship interests. The individual, in their opinion, is solely a means to achieve those interests."
In Barakat's opinion, Lloyd's dismissal was related to a proposed treaty with Egypt, "which I learned has been drawn up in the Foreign Office". The treaty was supported by the majority of conservatives who had formerly relied on Lloyd to undermine the Declaration of 28 February. However, he continues, when colonialist hard-liners among the conservatives sensed moves to dismiss Lloyd, "they rushed to his defence in order to forestall a more liberal understanding of the declaration. Although they had wanted to abolish the declaration they realised that it was impossible to do so officially without detriment to the honour of their nation."
On 17 August 1929, Al-Ahram released the first news about the new high commissioner. Writing from London, its special correspondent reported, "Yesterday afternoon, King George received Percy Lawrence who had the honour of kissing the hand of his Royal Highness on the occasion of his appointment as the High Commissioner to Cairo." Evidently, even well-informed Egyptian sources were unfamiliar with the forthcoming occupant of Dubara Palace, judging by the misspelling of his name, which was Loraine, not Lawrence.
Egypt's seven high commissioners seemed to belong to one of three schools. From the ranks of the military came such high- profile figures as Lord Kitchner who led the expedition to reconquer Sudan and Allenby who in World War I led the British phalanx into Palestine and drove the Turkish forces out of the Levant.
Another contingent was drawn from the ranks of the Imperial Service, mostly from India. These were Lord Cromer, the first, most famous and longest serving British representative in Egypt (1883-1907), and Lord Lloyd who had served as governor- general of Bombay before coming to Egypt. This common background explains in part why Lloyd considered Cromer his mentor, announcing before coming to Egypt that he would follow in the footsteps of his predecessor of more than two decades earlier.
Of considerably less renown were those who rose to high commissioner of Egypt through the ranks of the diplomatic corps. One of these was Sir Eldon Gorst, who served in Egypt from 1907 to 1911. The most recent was Lloyd's replacement. Born in 1880, Percy Loraine was educated in Cambridge, after graduating from which he fought in the Boer War. In 1904, he joined the diplomatic service, which brought him to Istanbul, Tehran, Rome, Peking, Paris and Madrid. In 1919, he was a member of the British delegation at the Versailles Peace Conference, after which he became his country's minister-plenipotentiary to Tehran and Athens.
Loraine's imminent arrival was announced by Al-Ahram's Paris correspondent. Toward the end of August, he reported that the new high commissioner had just arrived in the French capital, on his way to Rome and then to Genoa from where he would board the SS Asperia bound for Alexandria.
Certain this news would heighten its readers' curiosity, Al-Ahram took the occasion to relay a commentary that appeared in African World, which said, "Among the advantages of Sir Percy Loraine with respect to Egypt is that he has no past history with the country. He will, therefore, bring with him a fresh and impartial perspective. We also believe that he is determined to do all in his power to cooperate with leaders and officials of the Egyptian government towards implementing the policy of the government."
On 2 September 1929, the ship bringing the new high commissioner arrived in the port of Alexandria. On hand to welcome him was King Fouad, heading a large retinue of officials including Chargé d'Affaires of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Lutfi El-Sayed, the governor of Alexandria, the British commissioner of police of Alexandria, senior officials of the high commissioner's office and the British consul-general in Alexandria.
As it was summer when most government officials tended to relocate headquarters to the cooler climes of Alexandria, Sir Loraine, too, decided to spend some time there before officially assuming office in Cairo. It was, therefore, not until 13 September that he reached the Egyptian capital, where he was greeted upon his arrival by top British officials in Egypt: the commander- general of British forces in Egypt, the inspector-general of the Egyptian army, the director of the European Department at the Ministry of Interior. The Al-Ahram correspondent on the scene reports: "A platoon of British soldiers standing in formation in the lobby of the railway station performed the obligatory salute to His Excellency as he descended from the train. The high commissioner shook hands with those on hand to receive him, after which he left, on his way to inspecting the residence of the high commissioner in Dubara Palace."
Al-Ahram felt the arrival of the new high commissioner offered cause for hope. Loraine was reputed for "skill and acumen, as well as flexibility and patience", qualities that were favourable to a successful outcome of negotiations "over the treaty with the British that is to be proposed to this nation". In addition, unlike his predecessors whose duties were to secure and prolong the British occupation, the new high commissioner was charged with promoting a treaty between Egypt and Britain. His was a mission of reconciliation and understanding, not of "it is ours to command and yours to obey".
In the pursuit of his mission, the new high commissioner would have to contend with a panoply of diverse political forces. There was firstly the "din from the various political parties", which, however, "when compared to this phenomenon in other countries pales as a whisper does to thunder". Secondly, he could expect an outcry from foreigners living in Egypt because of the possibility that the forthcoming treaty will end the immunities many of them enjoyed under the capitulations system. For foreigners reluctant to relinquish their privileges Al-Ahram had nothing but contempt. "Those who hate equality are not just, cannot advocate peace and are unable to conform to the spirit of the age." Thirdly, Al-Ahram cautioned the high commissioner that he would have to contend with public opinion, contrary to the claims of some that public opinion did not exist in Egypt or that it could be steered in any direction one wants. The newspaper urged him to take the opinion of the Egyptian people as much to heart as he would that of the British.
Egyptians waited anxiously for Loraine's first official pronouncements. These came precisely a month after his arrival in Cairo. On 17 October he gave an interview to The Egyptian Gazette, which Al-Ahram translated in full under the headline: "Crucial interview with the British High Commissioner -- Britain's policy on Egypt -- the practical application of principles".
Loraine spoke mainly of the Anglo-Egyptian treaty that was currently under negotiation. While the conclusion of this treaty would constitute a landmark in Anglo-Egyptian relations, signing the document alone was not sufficient. Both sides had to demonstrate the intention to apply its principles, "and the fruit of this intention can only manifest itself in the spirit of mutual respect and trust and the understanding by both sides of the common purposes towards which the treaty was concluded".
Unfortunately, subsequent developments put paid to the general optimism that surrounded Loraine's arrival and first month in office.
* The author is a professor of history and head of Al-Ahram History Studies Centre.
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
